|
Northjayhawk posted:What are the odds that a year from now (assuming he isn't president), Trump laughs off his whole campaign and insists that it was all bullshit, he didn't believe most of it, and he was literally saying only what he thought he needed to get elected? The only reason he would do this is if he wanted to stay in politics. ComradeCosmobot posted:This is what the electorate really believes. Nope, only dumb accelerationists.
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
BitcoinRockefeller posted:Some old people differentiate semi-autos and revolvers by calling one a pistol and one a revolver I don't know why but it's a thing. It's like how people here say they don't own any cars, just trucks.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Though if a Republican wins, you're definitely going to get a Recession and a Depression because of the actions that a Republican Congress + President will push through. So I'll err on the side of "not giving power to all of those morons". Plus there's no guarantee you'll win anything but the Presidency in 2020 either. computer parts fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Mar 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Asking the superficial question. A lot of people here are scared of furries, so the Idaho Governor would give him a run for his money.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:So taking a risk, but as Sanders supporter he's done after tonight right? He needs to win a big state as much as Hillary won Texas tonight, which won't happen.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:
Third option: it's not a dangerous precedent because other Secretaries of State have done the same thing and gotten away with it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
VirtualStranger posted:The electoral maps show pretty much every county in the deep south voting in lockstep for Clinton and Trump, proving once and for all that the south is completely irredeemable garbage. Bernbros aren't racist, no siree.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:Why is everyone so certain that the Dems will continue to lurch right when polling trends keep showing that America is becoming more liberal? It's human nature to extrapolate a trend into ridiculousness. The secret is, that trend ceased to exist somewhere around 2012 at the latest.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:But in say 10 or 20 or 30 years, are we really going to still have SuperConservatives vs UltraConservatives when the then-majority of Americans don't want either of those things? Isn't it more likely that the Republicans will become marginalized if conservative support moves to the Dems, leading to a larger realignment? It's hard to tell. On the one hand, Millennials have a lot of Progressive views, but on the other hand they have a lot of conservative ones. But then again, most of those conservative views are strictly in the white Millennials' camp, and whites are a smaller portion of the Millennials than previous generations. So in short, "white power" like what the GOP does now is going to be a losing proposition, but a bunch of young whites are probably going to join them in a decade or two. (And no one start the crap about how they'll co-opt Hispanics)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:The Post-911 Tumblr Generation seems more invested in Social Justice and Online Activism. The Post-911 [anything] generation barely has driver's licenses.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:And this is why I predict the Republican party devolving into a regional party, while someone, probably the Greens, coming up to eat the Dems from the left, rather than someone assuming the Right of the current Republicans. Greens are unlikely because their holistic medicine bullshit is primarily consumed by upper-class whites, who aren't going to be left of the status quo.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Are they, if the people living under them self-report to be happier (with longer lives, even)? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn5f0-y71tE
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:
More likely the Democratic Party itself will split, though along what lines is not exactly certain. Financial aspects are one possibility, but the only people on the rich side would be whites, which leads you back to the Republicans again. People say Libertarians will rise up, but the anti-war stuff is untenable as long as America is a global power and other than that you again just have rich (white) dudes. That's the thing about American politics - they're sticky, in that the status will be maintained until there's no possible chance it can anymore, and then everything shifts so hard that you wonder how the status quo will ever be changed again. Right now we're building up to a point when white dominance is severely curtailed in American society. Once that happens, who knows what's going to come next. TheDeadlyShoe posted:Uh.... A) That study appears to be incredibly broad. Here are the list of practices that fall under "CAM". Note that things like the Atkins diet are listed. quote:Acupuncture* B) This still proves my point. 43% of whites is far larger than the rest of those combined, because 43% of 66% of the population is 28.4, while the rest is 9.2 (Hispanics are ~16%, Blacks are ~12%, Asians are ~5% and American Indians are ~0.7%). computer parts fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Mar 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Why the hell are we complaining about Octogenarian led Cuba? Actually for much the same reason we're complaining about the GOP. We're on the cusp of major change but everyone's impatient.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:a modern constitutional convention would be insanity I mean even the original one almost devolved into a Civil War (hyperbole, but not by much).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I'm very interested in your new Title. What on earth did you do? In the right wing populist thread, some people had the sentiment of "The Democrats are focusing too much on
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Radbot posted:You must surely have the liberal scout badge of "calls people racist the most". If you're white, that's loving hilarious I mean I didn't buy it either. If I wanted to spend money on titles I would've changed this one by now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:The main planks of Obamacare are: Two important notes here: - "Full time" in this case means 30 hours, instead of 40 hours. This is because they anticipated employers would cut hours to avoid Health insurance payouts. - It was not "left up to the states" to accept Medicaid. That was a concession forced by the Supreme Court. The original bill required states take the Medicaid expansion or the existing funding would be pulled.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:No but how is it legal to bill someone for 6x what experts have determined is a reasonable maximum without them explicitly consenting to your rates? Do note that a public option/single payer health care system would not intrinsically avoid these same issues. We know this to be true as well, since Medicare Part D is a thing. The problem regarding insurance in our current system is that insurers are not incentivized to minimize costs at the consumer level. For a lot of procedures, they do negotiate a lower price. For the really expensive ones, they just drop coverage. The problem with costs is the assholes at the hospitals, not the insurance companies specifically. computer parts fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Mar 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Health insurance will be hosed until the government decides that treating sick people like a piggy bank for the insurance companies is immoral and unethical. Again, it's really strange that people focus on the insurance companies. I guess because that's who they deal with directly.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Well, so far if you think Trump is going to win the general then you're making the same mistake as people who thought he wouldn't win the GOP nom. No, it only counts if you're cynical.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:The system still would have a ton of problems, but private insurers' consistently choosing to pick fights with their policy holders rather than the people screwing them on the grounds that the sick and dying don't have the kind of legal resources a hospital network does would no longer be one of them. Well to be accurate you're getting rid of private insurers' picking fights. There's still no guarantee that the actual medical billers would be targeted at all, and indeed there's historical precedent against it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:It's momentum. For decades insurance companies were by far the most rent seeking middle men in the healthcare industry. The local healthcare monopolies are incredibly new and still growing. It still boggles my mind how quickly and decisively doctors came together given how libertarian they typically are. Again, Medicare Part D would seem to contradict this. It's standard operating procedure already for the hospital to give out a pie-in-the-sky number and the insurance company to negotiate it down. I doubt somehow that that only emerged in the past 5-10 years.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Hospitals and providers charge so much for a few different reasons, but mainly because their investments are incredibly expensive (no price control) and because insurance companies collude to improve profits. They don't collude though, the hospitals send out that bill all on their own. They (and drug makers) also send out the bill on our existing government health care system. Insurance actually hates those high bills, because if they're paid it's coming out of the insurance's money. That's why they just dropped claims in the past.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:If you dont think the still-incredibly high 'negotiated' chargemaster prices qualify as collusion then I dont know what to tell you. And my point is that getting rid of insurance companies (even though multipayer systems are common in Europe) is incremental change, because they're not the source of the problem.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:God no. The elder generation has taught the younger that it's not just okay but desirable to burn everything to the ground and salt the earth so long as you're ahead of the game. Those anecdotes (along with mine) suggest exactly the opposite of that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Sure, but at some point it just makes more sense to go with the flow if the right decisions are going to be too personally costly. You don't need to be an rear end in a top hat to behave badly if there's so much cultural resistance that you're given no reasonable alternative. Yeah, but we're relying on the assumption that this isn't the default state of humanity. If the culture changed to be more rear end in a top hat-ish, it can be changed to be less rear end in a top hat-ish too.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:Medicare = effective socialized benefits for boomers Unless you need prescription drugs. RuanGacho posted:It says something that the Google article subtitle says is: "New research reveals surprising truths about why some work groups thrive and others falter" Anyone's who's worked in a media org can tell you that's an easy way to get people to click on something.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
I'm also speaking less from a strictly business perspective and more from an Engineering management one. the latter are still autistic weirdos but they like making their trains run on time.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I see the epipen as the culmination of all that's wrong with the medical system, and the answer to probably a lot of our costs is to take back all the intellectual property the public has paid for in universities research and entering them into the public commons like the epipen should be. The epipen already exists in the public commons; it's based off of military technology used to treat nerve gas poisoning.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Zerilan posted:Almost all of the post-debate coverage I've seen has been repeating the "Kasich was the only adult on stage" narrative. Someone please reassure me that this will not be the start of Kasich catching up in delegates and having a chance at the nominee. If somehow a meteor took out Trump and either Cruz or Rubio, Kasich would still only be in second place after that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
Damonic posted:I don't really know too much about how primaries work, but I'm sure one of you guys could answer this for me. Depends on the state. Some of them become unbound and they can move to whoever. Some of them are forced to vote for that candidate on the first ballot of the convention. So Jeb! might've won 50 delegates, but they can't vote for anyone else until it's clear he didn't win the majority.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:I was thinking about this while listening to the Political Gabfest today, but isn't this upheaval of the Republican Party the perfect opportunity for the Libertarian party to go in and get enough votes in the general to get some public election funding (ironic as that may be)? Like, they should be banging down Ron Paul's door and asking him to go on one last ride, for the good of the party. They've been doing just that, but with Gary Johnson. Based on your response, you can see how much success that strategy is creating.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:Also slain civil rights leader Medgar Evers' brother has officially endorsed Trump. What the poo poo? He endorsed Ronald Reagan in 1980. Not exactly the Trump-mentum you're looking for. Also lol: quote:Evers said that if he has the chance to speak with Trump he wants to pitch bringing a catfish processing plant to Mississippi.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:What do you think would happen if, when he loses the nomination, Bernie puts out a statement telling his disillusioned supporters to not not be a goddamn idiot and support Hillary? Most will listen to him. Of the ones that don't, most won't vote. Of those remaining ones, they'll probably vote for Jill Stein because her party thinks magic crystals are real.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:
This assumption isn't backed up by reality. The largest non-voting group is youth. It has always been the largest non-voting group, from Watergate on to today. As they age, the youth always pick up their voting trends until they're in line with previous generations at the same age. Therefore, the assumption we can draw is that this youth vote is not specifically un-represented, and will vote when they're old enough (and indeed, some people who voted for Obama in their 20s are already showing that). If voters were so disillusioned with politics that they wouldn't vote, they would keep on not voting as they age.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:We're specifically talking about people who came out to vote in the primaries/caucuses here, Mr. Reading Comprehension. You'll have to show there's significant numbers of people that vote in the primaries but don't in the general. If anything the opposite is true -voting in the primaries makes you much more likely to vote in the general, regardless of candidate.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Okay so how about not alienating them in the meantime, then. There's no evidence that their lack of voting is due to alienation, unless you're defining that term as something dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I think something missing in this thread is the underestimation of the GOPe and R's in general inability to comprehend the idea that anyone would ever vote for Hillary, you can see it illustrated by how Cruz talked about her on Thursday. It's interesting how much you see that here as well. I mean in reality Hillary is a popular Democratic candidate, but from this board you'd think she's a witch who's going to be indicted any time now and sent Civil Rights activists to smear other candidates. I guess in that light it's no wonder why some people are pledging to Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:I'm not talking about now, I'm saying that if they aren't reliable voters now but they will eventually become such, then it's better for you if they keep some sort of affinity for your cause between now and the time when they would become reliable allies. The evidence shows that they don't care later in life (because they vote regularly), so either they forget about how much the parties annoy them, or there's some other confounding factor that makes them not vote. I'm going with the latter, personally.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 17:38
|
|